FY 2000 proposal 199705600

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Potential constraints include permitting and weather.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Comments: This proposal provided useful background information about the general problems affecting fish in the Klickitat watershed and a good general description of the need for the different project elements. It could have been vastly improved, however, by including documentation and references and by proofreading. Beyond the general descriptions, the proposal does not offer a rationale for how the particular restoration activities were identified and why they are the highest priority. What factors are the greatest impediments to salmon recovery and why? If a baseline survey was completed in 1997 (Swale Creek), then the results should be summarized and used as justification for this work. In section 8a the proposal states that current conditions limit spawning opportunities. What conditions? They should be explicitly stated. What are the specific habitat problems and how will this project correct them? The objectives do not contain measurable performance criteria. How will success be determined? There is a good description of project history, but a poor tie back to problems and measurable objectives.

It is difficult to reconcile the decision for ongoing restoration work (for which no rationale is given) and the proposed watershed assessment, presumably to evaluate restoration needs. If watershed assessment still needs to be completed then how can specific restoration measures be identified and a budget developed? If results of prior assessment work are available, then they should be presented to provide a rationale for the ongoing habitat work. It is not clear what level of watershed assessment has been done in the basin and how the results have been incorporated in proposal. Watershed assessment was identified as one of the objectives, but the description of the methods is minimal.

The monitoring design and performance measures are not clear. The adequacy of the budget cannot be evaluated because the limiting factors and priority restoration needs (and therefore reasonable costs) are not defined. The use of land acquisition is potentially very important but was not described in any detail. The involvement of landowners and the public in the process is a strength of the proposal.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

How will the sponsor monitor flow and fine sediment delivery?

The proposal discusses the importance of improving temperature regimes but there is no mention of water temperature monitoring.

There is no information on how data will be analyzed to assess the performance of restoration efforts.

The project has been ongoing since 1997 but there was no mention of the biological outcomes of the past accomplishments.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website